Neither of those things were backed by science. Confusing convincing lobbying with science is a problem today was it was then.

Did anybody ever not sour on this testicular sore of a human being?

Hey I actually know this guy

Ah yes, the freedom of owning a car.

This is all true. Kinda surprising. Memes about Canada are usually pretty incorrect.

This movie was so good until the end. I was like “oh, ok.”.

Bands I play in, venues I go to and shows they announce are widely published on Facebook. I tried to stay off but it persists.

People have a serious bias towards what they can see. They can see protesters but they can’t see pollution. Effective protests are hard to ignore. So they see protesters as a bigger problem than polluters.

Yes.

If they hurt no one else and infringe on no one else’s rights I have no business policing what two consenting adults do with their bodies, time and/or money.

Edit: it should also be totally legal, like all drugs.

Hotdogs, hamburgers, I like a little Shepherd’s pie with my ketchup, tourtière (Quebec mince pie).

Wait but Joe Rogan told me it’s governed by a communist, I don’t know what that is but it can’t be good

You decided something informed by the insecurities and beliefs you were raised with. You’re a slave to the world around you and you think you had an original thought. Pathetic.

• Drag queens reenacted a painting of a Greek scene at the Olympic opening ceremonies.

• Christians naturally thought it was about them and started crying persecution, other bigots took advantage of the fray to attack the LGBT community.

• The world rejoices at another opportunity to mock the latter into oblivion.

TLDR; The usual

I’m part of the rest of society and I agree with their methods. I haven’t been propagandized into thinking protests shouldn’t be disruptive (ignorable). They’ve got you thinking minor inconvenience = utter contempt (which for some reason you chose to write two comments in a row), and that for some reason deserves prison time.

Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.

I really don’t mind if the mildly inconvenienced thousands of people. If in a functioning democracy our powers are threefold - the vote, the media and protest, and peaceful protest by its very nature is a protest that can be ignored, then no change can be affected by non disruptive protest. In my opinion this isn’t disruptive enough. If we treated this climate crisis with the urgency it deserves then we would take a page out of the European book and block highways with concrete bollards.

Make no mistake, our children will burn and we’re worried about missing a flight.

I think it’s safe to say that if they gave up their freedom for the cause of trying to save us and our descendants from climate catastrophe then they are absolutely morally superior to both of us. The mistake you make is thinking that the law has a single thing to do with moral superiority, it only deals in financial superiority.

What an absolutely tone deaf and patronizing statement. The world is ending but god forbid we inconvenience anyone while trying to do something about it.

It’s Greek, not Latin. It should be octopodes.

It is octopodes. It’s Greek and it follows the Greek pluralisation convention.

Philosophical phantasm, they know but accepting it’s true in a real sense would cause them to have an identity crisis.